The case introduces that the plaintiff Qixinhui Company and the defendant Sanxiang Company signed the Purchase Contract for Elevator Maintenance Training Equipment of Shenzhen Qixinhui Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Purchase Contract") on August 13, 2003, stipulating that the defendant shall deliver the corresponding equipment to the plaintiff within 90 days after the plaintiff pays, and the plaintiff shall pay the defendant the total contract price of RMB 338 102, which shall be paid in installments. Item 4 of Article 9 of the Default Clause stipulates that if Party B fails to deliver the equipment, it shall pay Party A a penalty of 10% of the total equipment value; Article 5: If Party B fails to deliver the equipment within the time limit, it shall pay one thousandth of the equipment payment to Party A as liquidated damages every day. After the contract was signed, the plaintiff paid the defendant the first installment payment according to the purchase contract, but the defendant failed to deliver the equipment to the plaintiff within the agreed time, so the plaintiff sent a reminder letter to the defendant to fulfill the contractual obligations as soon as possible, and the defendant later replied to the plaintiff's letter of commitment, promising to deliver all the equipment to the plaintiff before April 28, 2065438. If there is any breach of contract, it shall be handled according to the breach clause signed in the contract. The letter of commitment is attached with an annex. Article 9.2 of the annex stipulates that if Sanxiang Company fails to deliver the goods on time, it shall pay Qi Xinhui a penalty of 1% of the contract amount for each day of delay. However, when the plaintiff sued, the defendant still failed to deliver the equipment, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the relevant court. After the first trial, second trial and retrial of this case, the defendant not only refunded all the contract fees paid by the plaintiff, but also paid the plaintiff the liquidated damages according to the judgment 10 1430 yuan. Analysis of case knowledge points (1) concurrence of responsibilities for delayed delivery and non-delivery. In the trial of the case, both the original defendant and the court used the clauses of delayed delivery and non-delivery. In order to facilitate understanding, the author briefly explains these two terms here. The so-called delayed delivery, for example, both parties agreed in the contract that Party B would deliver a batch of goods to Party A on February 25th, 20 19, but Party B didn't deliver the goods until February 25th, 20 19, 3 1. At this time, Party B will bear the liability for breach of contract for delayed delivery. However, if the goods cannot be delivered, the above example will be followed, that is, there is objectively no factual possibility that Party B can deliver the goods to Party A.. If the goods are completely damaged and there is no substitute, the purpose of the contract can not be achieved at all. This situation is called delivery failure. In this case, the purchase contract stipulated that Sanxiang Company should deliver the corresponding equipment within 90 days after Qixinhui Company paid, but after Qixinhui Company paid, Sanxiang Company failed to deliver the equipment in time as agreed in the contract, which was a breach of contract, but both parties later reached an agreement that Sanxiang Company should deliver the equipment before 2065438+April 28, 2004. At this time, "Sanxiang Company" and "Tripartite Company" not only constituted the liability for delayed delivery. (2) When the liabilities for breach of contract coexist, the observant party chooses the liabilities for breach of contract. According to the contract signed by both parties, the way to bear the liability for breach of contract is different. Item 4 of Article 9 of the Default Clause stipulates that if Party B fails to deliver the equipment, it shall pay Party A a penalty of 10% of the total equipment value; Article 5: If Party B fails to deliver the equipment within the time limit, it shall pay one thousandth of the equipment payment to Party A as liquidated damages every day. In addition, Sanxiang Company replied to Article 9.2 in the annex of Qi Xinhui's letter of commitment, saying that Sanxiang Company should pay Qi Xinhui a penalty of 1% of the contract amount for each day overdue. At this time, the latter's liability for breach of contract is inconsistent with the earlier contract liability agreement. It is generally believed that the latter agreement is a change to the extension clause of the previous contract, that is, both parties have made new changes. At present, when Sanxiang Company breaches the contract, the calculation method of liquidated damages proposed by Qi Xinhui Company in the first instance includes delayed delivery liquidated damages and non-delivery liquidated damages, but the court of first instance only supports non-delivery liquidated damages. However, the court of second instance held that Qi Xinhui's claim that the delivery of the three-party company could not breach the contract and delayed the delivery was "several penalties for one line" and had no legal basis. However, the court of second instance also stated in the judgment that the contract in this case was terminated due to the overdue delivery of Santong Company, and Qi Xinhui Company, as the observant party, has the right to choose which liability for breach of contract to apply. The case reveals that the behavior of the "three-party company" belongs to one behavior violating two liabilities for breach of contract, which belongs to the concurrence of liabilities. We can't punish the "three links company" twice, but give the initiative to bear the responsibility for breach of contract to Qixinhui company, which not only embodies the judicial protection for good observant people, but also conforms to the principle of good faith. Through this case, we found that the court finally supported the punishment against Xinhui Company 10 1430 yuan, and the judgment was made on the basis of the agreement. In reality, when many enterprises sign a contract, the way to bear the liability for breach of contract is often unclear, and most of them agree to compensate according to the actual loss. Once the other party breaches the contract, it is often difficult for the observant party to prove the actual loss of the contract. Therefore, the author would like to remind everyone that in the case that both parties can reach an agreement on the terms of breach of contract, it is advisable to clarify the specific amount of liquidated damages so that when disputes arise, they can enter the judicial process.